why does nobody talk about below spec
why does nobody talk about below spec. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months.
WXT BPC, batch matched the paperwork, Janoshik came back 99.6% against a claimed 99.0%. Paid for it myself, posting it because the log is only worth anything if people do.
Have now spent more on testing than on some of the orders. No regrets — the log is the reason I can buy without agonising.
Sent a vial in specifically to check a supplier’s claim after a good experience. It matched. Boring result, worth logging.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
if you are going to test, test the thing you actually received
First result I ever posted here got asked for the batch number and the claim. Fair, and my posts have been better ever since.
Do you have the trace, or only the summary?
Small fix — same supplier, different lot. The two rows in the log are not the same batch.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.
a result with no batch number is about a vial nobody can identify
net peptide content if the report gives it, and say which you are quoting
That service reports area percent by default. Worth stating, since the thread has been comparing it to a mass figure.
three lots beats three tests on one lot
- 1Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven…8 comments in this branch · started by u/mei_cardoso